Moore’s Law: The Life of Gordon Moore, Silicon Valley’s Quiet …

Moores Law is an engaging biography and a definitive account of the man behind the famous prediction. The authors are Arnold Thackray, David C. Brock and Rachel Jones a chemist, a historian and a journalist whose varied expertise makes for an informed, thorough and readable chronicle.... Gordon Moores forecast was spectacularly right. Yet, as this compelling biography proves, even if he had never hazarded it, he would remain a legend in Silicon Valley. Wall Street Journal

Arnold Thackray, David Brock and Rachel Jones transform Moore from a man doing something inscrutable in the margins to a comprehensible, fiercely driven technophile who shaped history from the inside out. Nature

Thackray, Brock, and Jones run through Moores multifaceted life with a refreshing lack of tech talk or science jargon, revealing a man who realized his dreams while maintaining a stable, affirming personal life. Publishers Weekly

[An] admiring, richly detailed book.... [T]echies will be delighted with its full treatment of an important figure often overshadowed by such luminaries as Steve Jobs and Larry Ellison. Kirkus Reviews

Finally, Gordon Moore gets the biography he deserves! One of the foremost pioneers of the digital revolution, he is a visionary, engineer, and revered leader. His 'law' defined and guided the growth of computing power, and his business acumen helped to create Silicon Valley. This is an inspiring and instructive tale of how brilliance and leadership can coexist with humility and decency in a truly extraordinary person. Walter Isaacson, author of Steve Jobs

Moore's Law is not only a definitive biography of a legendary figure in computing, but a fascinating account of the forces that triggeredand sustainthe digital revolution that has changed life for all of us. Steven Levy, author of Hackers and In the Plex

"Gordon Moores story is one of disruptive innovation on the grandest scale, practiced by a brilliant technologist. Now at last we have the book that tells the story. Moores Law offers a compelling, absorbing account of Silicon Valley, and its role in human progress." Clayton Christensen, Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School and author of The Innovators Dilemma

If you think you know Moores Law, prepare to be enlightened. If you think you know Gordon Moore, prepare to be enthralled. And if all of this is new to you, prepare for the ride of your life. This is the definitive story of the central theorem of the digital age, the man behind it, and its ongoing impact on us all. John Hollar, President & CEO, Computer History Museum

With care and color, Moores Law tells us how Gordon Moore, at the center of the IT revolution, applied his knowledge and insight in a quiet and effective way. When Gordon talked, everyone listened. George P. Shultz, former U. S. Secretary of State and Thomas W. and Susan B. Ford Distinguished Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University

A remarkable book about a remarkable man, told with great style and refreshing candor. Carver Mead, the Gordon and Betty Moore Professor Emeritus of Engineering and Applied Science, Caltech and winner of the National Medal of Technology and Innovation

Arnold Thackray and his co-authors integrate business history with the history of science and technology with great success, rendering this biography of Silicon Valleys most important revolutionary a captivating and deeply illuminating read. Moores Law is also a signal contribution to the study of California history, showing how the social and cultural circumstances of the Bay Area enabled Gordon Moores creativity. David A. Hollinger, Preston Hotchkis Professor of History, Emeritus, University of California, Berkeley

"I can remember when a transistor radio had one transistor in itand now a giveaway bottle opener containing 8 billion of them is sitting on my desk. Gordon Moore and a small circle of accomplices, inseparable from the California landscape in which their story took form, were at the center of the most radical transformation in the history of technology. This is a definitive chronicle: authoritative, detailed, and well told." George Dyson, author of Turing's Cathedral and Darwin Among the Machines

Almost everyone knows Moores Law. Almost no one knows the Moore behind this law. Finally a book describing the quiet, unassuming technology godfather of Silicon Valley. A great read about a great man whose work truly changed the world. Craig R. Barrett, Former CEO & Chairman, Intel Corporation

This marvelous and well-written book about Gordon Moore captures his seminal role not only in Fairchild Semiconductor and Intel Corp, but also in the saga of Silicon Valley. The authors tell how Intel was managed into one of the great successes of all time. Gordon Moore in his quiet, non-threatening, and brainy manner created an atmosphere in which new ideas flourished and growth was encouraged. Moore's Law, his remarkable insight, has proved prescient. Woven into this story is the modest and loving relationship between Gordon and Betty, his wife of 65 years. Arthur Rock, Co-Founder of Silicon Valley venture capital firm Davis & Rock and original investor of Fairchild Semiconductor

A remarkable insight into the man who did so much to make Silicon Valley. David Morgenthaler, founder of Silicon Valley venture capital firm Morgenthaler Ventures

Arnold Thackray, active in the public life of scholarship, is a distinguished academic and the founding CEO of the Chemical Heritage Foundation. David C. Brock is a recognized authority on electronics, and Rachel Jones is a London journalist specializing in technology and entrepreneurship.

Follow this link:

Moore's Law: The Life of Gordon Moore, Silicon Valley's Quiet ...

Michaels Experience Moore’s Law Advancing Your Legal …

Michael Moorehas spent more than 25 years in the legal profession in private practice,as General Counsel for a public corporation,as aretained legal recruiter and consultant andasalaw firm executive.

Michaelhas helped law students launch careers, associates become partners and partners advance their practicesto new levels. He specializes inprofessional growth, marketing and client developmentand leadership coaching for attorneys at all levels of experience.

MichaelMoore provides value to law firms through strategic organizational and resource optimization. He has implemented proven methods to increase both associate and partner productivity, improve operational results and increase profits. He has helped firms with strategic planning, marketing programs andlateral recruitment as a growth option.

Michaelhas publishednumerous articleson a variety of legal topics such aseffective client development,social media use for lawyers,and law firm management including lawyer compensation, staff retention and smart growth. A few examples of his work can be found in the Articles section.

Michael has also conducted Webinars, seminars and retreats on behalf of various law firm administration and bar associations with topics such as effective client intake, matter budgeting and time management skills for lawyers as well as both strategic and succession planning.

If you think Michael could help you or your law firm, contact him at once for a free consultation.

Read more here:

Michaels Experience Moore's Law Advancing Your Legal ...

Mooers’ law – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the observation regarding integrated circuits, see Moore's law.

Mooers' law is an empirical observation of behavior made by American computer scientist Calvin Mooers in 1959. The observation is made in relation to information retrieval and the interpretation of the observation is used commonly throughout the information profession both within and outside its original context.

An information retrieval system will tend not to be used whenever it is more painful and troublesome for a customer to have information than for him not to have it.

Mooers argued that information is at risk of languishing unused due not only on the effort required to assimilate it but also to any fallout that could arise from the discovery of information that conflicts with the users personal, academic or corporate interests. In interacting with new information, a user runs the risk of proving their work incorrect or even irrelevant. Instead, Mooers argued, users prefer to remain in a state of safety in which new arguments are ignored in an attempt to save potential embarrassment or reprisal from supervisors.[2]

The more commonly used interpretation of Mooers' law is considered to be a derivation of the principle of least effort first stated by George Kingsley Zipf. This interpretation focuses on the amount of effort that will be expended to use and understand a particular information retrieval system before the information seeker 'gives up', and the Law is often paraphrased to increase the focus on the retrieval system:

The more difficult and time consuming it is for a customer to use an information system, the less likely it is that he will use that information system.

J. Michael Pemberton

Mooers' Law tells us that information will be used in direct proportion to how easy it is to obtain.

In this interpretation, "painful and troublesome" comes from using the retrieval system.

Link:

Mooers' law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Uncertain Future of Moores Law

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

For examples of how digital technology is rapidly, profoundly, and unexpectedly shaping lives across the globe, look no further than todays news: social media and the Arab Spring; the Stuxnet worm and the clandestine cyberwar against Iran; the proliferation of smartphones and tablets; the ubiquitous web and the cloud; Netflix streaming surpassing web surfing on the net; Bradley Mannings data dump to Wikileaks; and Microsoft as the new tech underdog. The digital world is changing rapidly, and so are we.

We have become accustomed to this state of perpetual flux, of this open-endedness in the application and proliferation of new digital technologies. Yet underneath this flux and unpredictability lies a shared certainty: The cost of digital electronics, and the technologies built with them, will dramatically plummet as their power and performance continues to rise exponentially.

This conviction about the future of digital electronicssilicon microchipsis widely known as Moores Law, named after Gordon Moore (a chemist and co-founder of both Fairchild Semiconductor and the Intel Corporation) for his explication of this developmental dynamic in silicon microchips in 1964.

We have already entered into an age of uncertainty about Moores Law itself.

Equal parts economic and technical, this developmental dynamic has been maintained for a half century by the semiconductor industry, through the efforts of thousands of researchers and the investment of hundreds of billions of dollars. Maintaining Moores Law has required a coordinated push in a single, common direction: shrinking the size of the basic building blocks of microchipstiny switches known as planar transistorsand, to use Moores term, cramming more and more of them into the same area of a silicon chip. To semiconductor initiates, this common direction is known as CMOS scaling (CMOS is an acronym for the variety of microchip that rose to prominence in the 1970s and 1980s). In fact, since the 1990s the semiconductor industry along with its specialty manufacturing tool and materials partners have collaborated on the International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors, a careful timeline of the problems that must be solved to maintain the traditional pace of change in silicon microchips.

The metronomic pace of CMOS scaling, largely taken for granted outside of certain technical communities, underlies our expectation of continual surprise in the digital world, from the continued proliferation of ever-more-powerful microchips. Our conviction in the reliability of Moores Law profoundly shapes the expectations and decisions of both producers and consumers of electronics-reliant goods and services. From military weapons systems to consumer electronics, product planning is grounded in Moores Law. As individual consumers, our purchasing decisions share this grounding: Who has not waited a year to buy a gadget, with the expectation that next years gadget version 2.0 will deliver much more bang for the buck?

But what weve taken for granted for decades may soon change. On Wednesday, May 4, some of the leading technologists at the Intel Corporation held a press conference to disclose details about their new silicon manufacturing technology. While there was much of interest in the Intel disclosures about the future of silicon microchips and the competitive landscape of the global semiconductor industry, perhaps the most important implication of the presentation has received little comment: We have already entered into an age of uncertainty about Moores Law itself. This conclusion is somewhat ironic, since Intel announced that it had succeeded in developing a new innovation that will extend Moores Law for at least another six years.

What did Intel disclose last month? In essence, Intel announced that it had abandoned the planar transistor, and, therefore, traditional CMOS scaling. As Mark Bohr, one of Intels most senior technologists put it in the press conference Q&A, We can say goodbye to planar transistors.

For the remarkable run of CMOS scaling over the past four decades, a defining feature of planar transistors was that they were flat; hence, their name. As planar transistors were shrunk so that a billion of them could be crammed into a single microchip, one problem became more and more pronounced. They became harder to turn off, a very bad thing for a switch. Solutions to this problem entailed a growing difficulty of their own: The improved transistors were power hungry, anathema to applications like smartphones, laptops, and tablets.

To continue shrinking transistors in order to maintain the pace of performance and cost improvement for microchips, and to untangle itself from this power dilemma, Intel announced a new manufacturing technology that it will begin to use for all of its products next year. In this technology, Intel will replace planar transistors with Tri-Gate transistors. These new transistors are no longer flat, but rather take the form of a minute rail or fin. Indeed, the more generic term of this new form of transistor, used by other semiconductor firms, is finFET. One of the principle virtues of these new non-flat or 3-D transistors is that they are easy to turn off, and thus combine great switching speed with very low power consumption.

At left is a traditional 32-nanometer 2-D transistor, while at right is the newer, smaller, 22-nanometer 3-D transistor.

Intel is making the jump to its Tri-Gate transistors several years ahead of its semiconductor industry rivals, and sees them as providing a basis for its subsequent generation of manufacturing technology in the next six years. This new path to maintaining Moores Law, as the Intel researchers noted, builds on previous deviations in the last five years or more from traditional materials and structures for CMOS scaling. As Bill Holt, the Intel VP for technology development put it, Simple CMOS scalingended a while ago. In the midst of their press conference, the Intel team presented a quote about the move to 3-D transistors from none other than Gordon Moore himself: For years we have seen limits to how small transistors can get. This change in the basic structure is a truly revolutionary approach, and one that should allow Moores Law, and the historic pace of innovation to continue.

While Intels jump to the world beyond traditional CMOS provides a view into the immediate future of the worlds largest chipmaker, a considerable haze of uncertainty now surrounds what its rivals will do in the near term, and what the whole industry will do after six short years. For the immanent 22 nanometer or 22 nm technology for which Intel will use 3-D transistorsand which Intel claims will have the capability of cramming as many as 6 million such transistors into the area occupied by a standard printed periodmany of its major competitors will maintain the planar transistor, and pursue an alternate approach to the power problem known as silicon on insulator. At the upcoming 14 nm technology some three years down the line, the semiconductor industry could bifurcate, with larger firms abandoning planar for 3-D transistorsmoving beyond CMOSwhile smaller firms pursue the silicon on insulator technology.

This handy (and not-at-all corny) video Intel put together illustrates the difference between 2-D and 3-D transistor technology:

Looking out further toward 2016, at the 10 nm technology for which development is already underway, the haze thickens. The optical technology used to form todays microchips becomes increasingly improbable at that level of the nanoscale, and the top contenders to replace it are already late in their development to keep pace with Moores Law. Looking out less than a decade from now to the 7 nm technology that is planned to follow 10 nm, the inherent atomic nature of matter looms as an issue for fabricating uniform devices. The diameter of a silicon atom is 0.2 nm.

As the semiconductor industry drives deeper into the nanoscale, it appears that we are returning to an age of technological uncertainty not dissimilar from the one from which silicon microchips first emerged. Such a return to a period in which the future of electronics was highly uncertain, and developments were far more unpredictable, could be both highly disruptive and incredibly exciting.

Disruption could occur in many forms. Patterns of technological change may become less uniform, with the magnitude of changes and their timescale disaggregating across different technologies. The management and funding of research and innovation may have to undergo considerable revision to adapt to uncertainty. On the one hand this means technological and economic planning may become significantly more difficult. On the other, creative and unexpected new directions in research might abound.

For most of the past 40 years, industry has conducted and financed the bulk of the R&D for CMOS scaling. In an age of increased technological uncertainty, government support of high-risk research may return to prominence. Indeed, direct military funding of R&D and activist, price-insensitive military demand were essential to the initial development of the microchip in the late 1950s and early 1960s. In this era, government research spending on microelectronics was significant, risk-tolerant, and open-ended, supporting a broad array of speculative approaches. It is interesting to note that the semiconductor community looks to DARPA-funded research at the University of California, Berkeley in the late 1990s as the origin of the 3-D transistor approach.

One conclusion to be drawn from Intels recent announcement is that while the immediate future of Moores Law appears clear, the longer term developmental path for electronics is now as, or more, uncertain than it has been for a half century. Previous news of the death of Moores Law has turned out to be exaggerated. The rather incredible extensibility of silicon technology and the creative potentials of the semiconductor community have repeatedly surmounted previous purported barriers. Surely silicon technology and microchips will continue to surprise even the most knowledgeable observers in the years ahead.

Nevertheless, with Intels leap to the world beyond traditional CMOS scaling and the planar transistor we appear to be quickly approaching a regime of increased technological uncertainty. Perhaps this is a return to a more typical state of affairs from a temporary excursion into unprecedented continuous and predictable change. Doubt is not an agreeable condition, Voltaire once quipped, but certainty is an absurd one.

David C. Brock is an historian of technology and the co-author of Makers of the Microchip (MIT Press, 2010). Brock is a Senior Research Fellow with the Center for Contemporary History and Policy at the Chemical Heritage Foundation, and is also affiliated with the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

Tags: Computing, information-technology, Intel, Moore's Law

By clicking and submitting a comment I acknowledge the Science Progress Privacy Policy and agree to the Science Progress Terms of Use. I understand that my comments are also being governed by Facebook's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

The rest is here:

The Uncertain Future of Moores Law

Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP – Attorneys at Law | Smith …

Location Atlanta Charleston Charlotte Greensboro Greenville Raleigh Wilmington School/Alma Mater Alderson-Broaddus College Appalachian State University Atlanta's John Marshall Law School Auburn University Birmingham-Southern College Boston College Boston College Law School Boston University Boston University School of Law Brigham Young University Brock University Campbell University Campbell University School of Law Case Western Reserve University School of Law Charleston School of Law Charleston Southern University Clemson University Clemson University, Calhoun Honors College College Of Charleston College of St. Thomas College of the Holy Cross Cornell University Creighton University School of Law Dartmouth College Davidson College Delta State University DePaul University College of Law DePauw University Drake University Duke University Duke University School of Law East Carolina University East Tennessee State University Elon University School of Law Emory University Emory University School of Law Erskine College Florida State University Franklin and Marshall College Furman University Gainesville College Gannon University George Washington University George Washington University Law School Georgetown University Law Center Georgia Institute of Technology Georgia State University Georgia State University College of Law Grinnell College Guilford College Hamilton College Harvard Kennedy School of Government Harvard Law School Harvard University Haverford College Indiana University Loyola Law School Loyola University School of Law Massachusetts Institute of Technology Mercer University School of Law Miami University New England School of Law New York University New York University School of Law North Carolina A&T State University North Carolina Central University School of Law North Carolina State University Northeastern University School of Law Northwestern University Ocean County College Princeton University Rhodes College S.D.A. Bocconi School of Management, Milan, Italy Samford University, Cumberland School of Law San Diego State University Senior Appellate Judge's Seminar Sewanee: The University of the South Suffolk University School of Law Texas A&M University The Citadel - The Military College of South Carolina The Ohio State University The Ohio State University College of Law Thomas M. Cooley Law School Tulane University Law School United States Air Force Academy United States Naval Academy University of Akron School of Law University of California, Los Angeles University of California, Los Angeles School of Law University of California, Santa Barbara University of Chicago University of Detroit Mercy School of Law University of Durham School of Law, College of St. Chad, Durham, England University of Florida University of Florida, Levin School of Law University of Georgia University of Georgia School of Law University of Kansas University of Kentucky University of Maryland University of Maryland, School of Social Work University of Miami School of Law University of Michigan University of Michigan Law School University of Nebraska University of Nevada, Las Vegas University of North Carolina at Asheville University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill University of North Carolina at Charlotte University of North Carolina at Wilmington University of North Carolina School of Law University of Notre Dame Law School University of Oxford University of Pittsburgh School of Law University of Richmond University of Richmond, T.C. Williams School of Law University of Richmond, Westhampton College University of San Francisco School of Law University of South Carolina University of South Carolina School of Law University of South Carolina, Moore School of Business University of Sussex University of Tennessee College of Law University of Virginia University of Virginia School of Law Vanderbilt University Vanderbilt University Law School Virginia Commonwealth University Wake Forest University Wake Forest University School of Law Wake Forest University, Babcock Graduate School of Management Washington & Lee University Washington & Lee University School of Law Wofford College

Admissions Alabama All State and Federal Courts in North Carolina Arizona California Colorado District of Columbia Florida Georgia Georgia Court of Appeals Georgia Supreme Court Illinois Indiana Massachusetts Michigan Mississippi Missouri North Carolina North Carolina Business Court Not admitted in North Carolina Ohio Pennsylvania South Carolina Tennessee Texas United States Bankruptcy Court, Middle District of North Carolina United States Court of Appeals United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces United States Court of Appeals, DC Circuit United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit United States Court of Federal Claims United States Court of International Trade United States Court of Military Appeals United States District and Bankruptcy Courts in North Carolina United States District Court United States District Court for the Middle District United States District Court, Central District of California United States District Court, Central District of Illinois United States District Court, District of Columbia United States District Court, District of South Carolina United States District Court, District of Virginia United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan United States District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania United States District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee United States District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin United States District Court, Middle District of Alabama United States District Court, Middle District of Florida United States District Court, Middle District of Georgia United States District Court, Middle District of North Carolina United States District Court, Middle District of Tennessee United States District Court, Northern District of Alabama United States District Court, Northern District of Florida United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois United States District Court, Northern District of Indiana United States District Court, Northern District of Texas United States District Court, Southern District of Florida United States District Court, Southern District of Georgia United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana United States District Court, Southern District of Texas United States District Court, Western District of Missouri United States District Court, Western District of North Carolina United States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania United States District Court, Western District of Tennessee United States Patent and Trademark Office United States Supreme Court United States Tax Court Virginia West Virginia Languages French Italian Spanish Title Associate Attorney Managing Partner Of Counsel Partner Partner in Charge

Read the rest here:

Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP - Attorneys at Law | Smith ...

Gordon Moore – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gordon Earle Moore (born January 3, 1929) is an American businessman, co-founder and Chairman Emeritus of Intel Corporation, and the author of Moore's law.[2][3][4][5][6] As of January 2015, his net worth is $6.7 billion.[7]

Moore was born in San Francisco, California, and grew up in nearby Pescadero. He attended Sequoia High School in Redwood City. Initially he went to San Jose State University.[8] After two years he transferred to the University of California, Berkeley, from which he received a Bachelor of Science degree in chemistry in 1950.[9]

In September, 1950 Moore matriculated at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech).[10] Moore received a PhD[11] in chemistry and minor in physics from Caltech in 1954.[9][12] Moore conducted postdoctoral research at the Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University from 1953 to 1956.[9]

Moore met his future wife, Betty Irene Whitaker, while attending San Jose State University.[10] Gordon and Betty were married September 9, 1950,[13] and left the next day to move to the California Institute of Technology. The couple have two sons Kenneth and Steven.[14]

Moore joined MIT and Caltech alumnus William Shockley at the Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory division of Beckman Instruments, but left with the "traitorous eight", when Sherman Fairchild agreed to back them and created the influential Fairchild Semiconductor corporation.[15][16]

In 1965, Gordon E. Moore was working as the director of research and development (R&D) at Fairchild Semiconductor. He was asked by Electronics Magazine to predict what was going to happen in the semiconductor components industry over the next ten years. In an article published on April 19, 1965, Moore observed that the number of components (transistors, resistors, diodes or capacitors)[17] in a dense integrated circuit had doubled approximately every year, and speculated that it would continue to do so for at least the next ten years. In 1975, he revised the forecast rate to approximately every two years.[18]Carver Mead popularized the phrase "Moore's law." The prediction has become a target for miniaturization in the semiconductor industry, and has had widespread impact in many areas of technological change.[16][2]

In July 1968, Robert Noyce and Moore founded NM Electronics which later became Intel Corporation.[19][20] Moore served as Executive Vice President until 1975 when he became President. In April 1979, Moore became Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, holding that position until April 1987, when he became Chairman of the Board. He was named Chairman Emeritus of Intel Corporation in 1997.[21] Under Noyce, Moore, and later Andrew Grove, Intel has pioneered new technologies in the areas of computer memory, integrated circuits and microprocessor design.[20]

Moore has been a member of the Board of Directors of Gilead Sciences since 1996, after serving as a member of the company's Business Advisory Board from 1991 until 1996.[22]

In 2000 Betty and Gordon Moore established the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, with a gift worth about $5 billion. Through the Foundation, they initially targeted environmental conservation, science, and the San Francisco Bay Area.[23]

The foundation gives extensively in the area of environmental conservation, supporting major projects in the Andes-Amazon Basin and the San Francisco Bay area, among others.[24] Moore was a director of Conservation International for some years. In 2002 he and Conservation International Senior Vice President Claude Gascon received the Order of the Golden Ark from His Royal Highness Prince Bernhard of Lippe-Biesterfeld for their outstanding contributions to nature conservation.[25]

Go here to see the original:

Gordon Moore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1965 – "Moore’s Law" Predicts the Future of Integrated …

Fairchild's Director of R & D predicts the rate of increase of transistor density on an integrated circuit and establishes a yardstick for technology progress.

Gordon Moore, Fairchild Semiconductor's Director of R&D, wrote an internal paper in which he drew a line through five points representing the number of components per integrated circuit for minimum cost per component developed between 1959 and 1964. "The Future of Integrated Electronics" attempted to predict "the development of integrated electronics for perhaps the next ten years." Extrapolating the trend to 1975 he projected that the number of components per chip would reach 65,000; a doubling every 12 months. Edited for publication as a magazine article, "Cramming more components onto integrated circuits" was published in Electronics on April 19, 1965.

At the 1975 IEEE International Electron Devices Meeting Moore, by now with Intel, noted that advances in photolithography, wafer size, process technology, and "circuit and device cleverness," especially in semiconductor memory arrays, had allowed his projection to be realized. Adding more recent data, that included a higher mix of microprocessor designs that were somewhat less dense than memories, he slowed the future rate of increase in complexity to "a doubling every two years, rather than every year."

This prediction became a self-fulfilling prophecy that emerged as one of the driving principles of the semiconductor industry. Technologists were challenged with delivering annual breakthroughs that ensured compliance with "Moore's Law," as it was dubbed by Carver Mead. On reviewing the status of the industry again in 1995 (at which time an Intel Pentium microprocessor held nearly 5 million transistors) Moore concluded that "The current prediction is that this is not going to stop soon." Devices exceeding one (U.S.) billion transistors exist today.

Contemporary Documents

Moore, Gordon. "The Future of Integrated Electronics." Fairchild Semiconductor internal publication (1964).

Moore, Gordon. "Cramming More Components onto Integrated Circuits," Electronics Magazine Vol. 38, No. 8 (April 19, 1965).

Moore, Gordon. "Progress in Digital Integrated Electronics" IEEE, IEDM Tech Digest (1975) pp.11-13.

Moore, Gordon. "Lithography and the Future of Moore's Law," Proceedings of SPIE, Vol. 2437 (May 1995).

More Information

Link:

1965 - "Moore's Law" Predicts the Future of Integrated ...

Donald C. Moore I Cincinnati Personal Injury Attorney

Donald C. Moore, Jr., has over 30 years of experience handling personal injury claims on behalf of accident victims and their loved ones. Don is experienced in representing clients in all types of personal injury claims. Along with his son, Daniel N. Moore, Don can provide you with the skilled representation you need in your personal injury case.

Don worked his way through law school as a full-time insurance claims adjuster. He worked for one of the largest insurance companies in the world, investigating and negotiating claims for some of the largest corporations in the world. He handled trucking cases, automobile accidents, medical malpractice cases for three major hospitals, premises liability cases for large hotel chains and supermarkets and many other types of cases.

Upon completion of law school, he went to work for the family law firm, established by his grandfather, father and uncle. After 13 years with the family firm, Don founded The Moore Law Firm, where he continues to proudly represent people who have been seriously injured or the families of those killed as a result of negligence.

During the course of his career, Don has done the following:

Don has received the following professional honors throughout his career:

Don concentrates his practice on personal injury law, including the following types of personal injury cases:

Don is a 1976 graduate of the University of Cincinnati with a Bachelors degree in Business Administration. Following his college graduation, Don attended the Salmon P. Chase College of Law at the Northern Kentucky University, where he received his Juris Doctor in 1979.

Don is admitted before all state courts in Ohio and Kentucky, U.S. District Federal Courts for the Southern District of Ohio and the Eastern District of Kentucky, and the U.S. Supreme Court

Don is or has been affiliated with the following organizations:

More here:

Donald C. Moore I Cincinnati Personal Injury Attorney

The Law of Accelerating Returns | KurzweilAI

An analysis of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential, contrary to the common-sense intuitive linear view. So we wont experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at todays rate). The returns, such as chip speed and cost-effectiveness, also increase exponentially. Theres even exponential growth in the rate of exponential growth. Within a few decades, machine intelligence will surpass human intelligence, leading to The Singularity technological change so rapid and profound it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history. The implications include the merger of biological and nonbiological intelligence, immortal software-based humans, and ultra-high levels of intelligence that expand outward in the universe at the speed of light.

You will get $40 trillion just by reading this essay and understanding what it says. For complete details, see below. (Its true that authors will do just about anything to keep your attention, but Im serious about this statement. Until I return to a further explanation, however, do read the first sentence of this paragraph carefully.)

Now back to the future: its widely misunderstood. Our forebears expected the future to be pretty much like their present, which had been pretty much like their past. Although exponential trends did exist a thousand years ago, they were at that very early stage where an exponential trend is so flat that it looks like no trend at all. So their lack of expectations was largely fulfilled. Today, in accordance with the common wisdom, everyone expects continuous technological progress and the social repercussions that follow. But the future will be far more surprising than most observers realize: few have truly internalized the implications of the fact that the rate of change itself is accelerating.

Most long range forecasts of technical feasibility in future time periods dramatically underestimate the power of future technology because they are based on what I call the intuitive linear view of technological progress rather than the historical exponential view. To express this another way, it is not the case that we will experience a hundred years of progress in the twenty-first century; rather we will witness on the order of twenty thousand years of progress (at todays rate of progress, that is).

This disparity in outlook comes up frequently in a variety of contexts, for example, the discussion of the ethical issues that Bill Joy raised in his controversial WIRED cover story, Why The Future Doesnt Need Us. Bill and I have been frequently paired in a variety of venues as pessimist and optimist respectively. Although Im expected to criticize Bills position, and indeed I do take issue with his prescription of relinquishment, I nonetheless usually end up defending Joy on the key issue of feasibility. Recently a Noble Prize winning panelist dismissed Bills concerns, exclaiming that, were not going to see self-replicating nanoengineered entities for a hundred years. I pointed out that 100 years was indeed a reasonable estimate of the amount of technical progress required to achieve this particular milestone at todays rate of progress. But because were doubling the rate of progress every decade, well see a century of progressat todays ratein only 25 calendar years.

When people think of a future period, they intuitively assume that the current rate of progress will continue for future periods. However, careful consideration of the pace of technology shows that the rate of progress is not constant, but it is human nature to adapt to the changing pace, so the intuitive view is that the pace will continue at the current rate. Even for those of us who have been around long enough to experience how the pace increases over time, our unexamined intuition nonetheless provides the impression that progress changes at the rate that we have experienced recently. From the mathematicians perspective, a primary reason for this is that an exponential curve approximates a straight line when viewed for a brief duration. So even though the rate of progress in the very recent past (e.g., this past year) is far greater than it was ten years ago (let alone a hundred or a thousand years ago), our memories are nonetheless dominated by our very recent experience. It is typical, therefore, that even sophisticated commentators, when considering the future, extrapolate the current pace of change over the next 10 years or 100 years to determine their expectations. This is why I call this way of looking at the future the intuitive linear view.

But a serious assessment of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential. In exponential growth, we find that a key measurement such as computational power is multiplied by a constant factor for each unit of time (e.g., doubling every year) rather than just being added to incrementally. Exponential growth is a feature of any evolutionary process, of which technology is a primary example. One can examine the data

in different ways, on different time scales, and for a wide variety of technologies ranging from electronic to biological, and the acceleration of progress and growth applies. Indeed, we find not just simple exponential growth, but double exponential growth, meaning that the rate of exponential growth is itself growing exponentially. These observations do not rely merely on an assumption of the continuation of Moores law (i.e., the exponential shrinking of transistor sizes on an integrated circuit), but is based on a rich model of diverse technological processes. What it clearly shows is that technology, particularly the pace of technological change, advances (at least) exponentially, not linearly, and has been doing so since the advent of technology, indeed since the advent of evolution on Earth.

I emphasize this point because it is the most important failure that would-be prognosticators make in considering future trends. Most technology forecasts ignore altogether this historical exponential view of technological progress. That is why people tend to overestimate what can be achieved in the short term (because we tend to leave out necessary details), but underestimate what can be achieved in the long term (because the exponential growth is ignored).

We can organize these observations into what I call the law of accelerating returns as follows:

Read this article:

The Law of Accelerating Returns | KurzweilAI

Deontological Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Because deontological theories are best understood in contrast to consequentialist ones, a brief look at consequentialism and a survey of the problems with it that motivate its deontological opponents, provides a helpful prelude to taking up deontological theories themselves. Consequentialists hold that choicesacts and/or intentionsare to be morally assessed solely by the states of affairs they bring about. Consequentialists thus must specify initially the states of affairs that are intrinsically valuableoften called, collectively, the Good. They then are in a position to assert that whatever choices increase the Good, that is, bring about more of it, are the choices that it is morally right to make and to execute. (The Good in that sense is said to be prior to the Right.)

Consequentialists can and do differ widely in terms of specifying the Good. Some consequentialists are monists about the Good. Utilitarians, for example, identify the Good with pleasure, happiness, desire satisfaction, or welfare in some other sense. Other consequentialists are pluralists regarding the Good. Some of such pluralists believe that how the Good is distributed among persons (or all sentient beings) is itself partly constitutive of the Good, whereas conventional utilitarians merely add or average each person's share of the Good to achieve the Good's maximization.

Moreover, there are some consequentialists who hold that the doing or refraining from doing, of certain kinds of acts are themselves intrinsically valuable states of affairs constitutive of the Good. An example of this is the positing of rights not being violated, or duties being kept, as part of the Good to be maximizedthe so-called utilitarianism of rights (Nozick 1974).

None of these pluralist positions erase the difference between consequentialism and deontology. For the essence of consequentialism is still present in such positions: an action would be right only insofar as it maximizes these Good-making states of affairs being caused to exist.

However much consequentialists differ about what the Good consists in, they all agree that the morally right choices are those that increase (either directly or indirectly) the Good. Moreover, consequentialists generally agree that the Good is agent-neutral (Parfit 1984; Nagel 1986). That is, valuable states of affairs are states of affairs that all agents have reason to achieve without regard to whether such states of affairs are achieved through the exercise of one's own agency or not.

Consequentialism is frequently criticized on a number of grounds. Two of these are particularly apt for revealing the temptations motivating the alternative approach to deontic ethics that is deontology. The two criticisms pertinent here are that consequentialism is, on the one hand, overly demanding, and, on the other hand, that it is not demanding enough. The criticism regarding extreme demandingness runs like this: for consequentialists, there is no realm of moral permissions, no realm of going beyond one's moral duty (supererogation), no realm of moral indifference. All acts are seemingly either required or forbidden. And there also seems to be no space for the consequentialist in which to show partiality to one's own projects or to one's family, friends, and countrymen, leading some critics of consequentialism to deem it a profoundly alienating and perhaps self-effacing moral theory (Williams 1973).

On the other hand, consequentialism is also criticized for what it seemingly permits. It seemingly demands (and thus, of course, permits) that in certain circumstances innocents be killed, beaten, lied to, or deprived of material goods to produce greater benefits for others. Consequencesand only consequencescan conceivably justify any kind of act, for it does not matter how harmful it is to some so long as it is more beneficial to others.

A well-worn example of this over-permissiveness of consequentialism is that of a case standardly called, Transplant. A surgeon has five patients dying of organ failure and one healthy patient whose organs can save the five. In the right circumstances, surgeon will be permitted (and indeed required) by consequentialism to kill the healthy patient to obtain his organs, assuming there are no relevant consequences other than the saving of the five and the death of the one. Likewise, consequentialism will permit (in a case that we shall call, Fat Man) that a fat man be pushed in front of a runaway trolley if his being crushed by the trolley will halt its advance towards five workers trapped on the track. We shall return to these examples later on.

Consequentialists are of course not bereft of replies to these two criticisms. Some retreat from maximizing the Good to satisficingthat is, making the achievement of only a certain level of the Good mandatory (Slote 1984). This move opens up some space for personal projects and relationships, as well as a realm of the morally permissible. It is not clear, however, that satisficing is adequately motivated, except to avoid the problems of maximizing. Nor is it clear that the level of mandatory satisficing can be nonarbitrarily specified, or that satisficing will not require deontological constraints to protect satisficers from maximizers.

Another move is to introduce a positive/negative duty distinction within consequentialism. On this view, our (negative) duty is not to make the world worse by actions having bad consequences; lacking is a corresponding (positive) duty to make the world better by actions having good consequences (Bentham 1789 (1948); Quinton 2007). We thus have a consequentialist duty not to kill the one in Transplant or in Fat Man; and there is no counterbalancing duty to save five that overrides this. Yet as with the satisficing move, it is unclear how a consistent consequentialist can motivate this restriction on all-out optimization of the Good.

See the original post here:

Deontological Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Intel celebrates Moore’s Law… with Gordon Moore – Fortune

May 12, 2015, 9:13 AM EDT E-mail Tweet Facebook Google Plus Linkedin Share icons

It isnt every day that Silicon Valley celebrates its rich history with someone who created it. Yet at age 86, Intel co-founder Gordon Moore is very much around to remind people of the scientific and commercial breakthrough he made 50 years ago when he explained to the technical community how semiconductors would develop.

Intel INTC , together with the foundation Moore and his wife Betty started, threw a bash Monday night at San Franciscos Exploratorium museum to honor the 50th anniversary of Moores Law. Pundit Thomas Friedman interviewed Moore, still a spry and powerful speaker years into his retirement.

Moores Law began as a technical article in an electronics-industry trade publication. Moore, while still at Fairchild Semiconductor, posited that the number of transistors on a semiconductor would continue to double every year, a figure he revised to every two years. Moore noted that his prediction, which he had no idea would be relatively precise, was an economic observation as much as a scientific one. It took considerable engineering effort, by Intel and others, to make his law come true.

Moore also said he tried to get out of the prediction business as quickly as he got into it. Once youve made a successful prediction you avoid making another one, he said.

Moores Law became a guiding light for an industry. His original article also envisioned a future for cheaper, more powerful semiconductors. He envisioned PCs, cell phones, self-driving cars, and electronic wristwatchesall powered by ever-improving chips.

Intel co-founder Gordon Moore in conversation with columnist Thomas Friedman in San Francisco on May 11, 2015.

Brian Krzanich, the current CEO of Intel, opened the evening by putting the achievement of Moores Law into perspective. Intels chips have improved performance a factor of 3,500 since they were introduced, he said, reflecting a 90,000-times improvement in energy efficiency and at one-60,000th of the cost. Were a 1971 Volkswagen Beetle to undergo the same transformation, he said, it would travel at 300,000 miles per hour, achieve 2 million miles per gallon, and cost four cents.

The evening offered hundreds of Moores admirers the opportunity to honor his achievements. He recounted that he became interested in science because a neighbor received a gift of a chemistry set that included explosives.

Moore himself didnt coin the expression Moores Law, and he avoided it for decades. For the first 20 years I couldnt utter the words Moores Law, he said. It was embarrassing. Over time he relented and embraced his accomplishment. Asked by Friedman if he knew which Google search would elicit more responses, Moores Law or Murphys Law, Moore responded that Moores Law would win hands down.

Read the original post:

Intel celebrates Moore's Law... with Gordon Moore - Fortune

As Moore’s Law slows, better design engineering will win …

For 50 years, Moores Law has reliably described exponential advances in silicon speed, power and functionality. But with the cost per transistor rising for the first time in history, weve entered an era of diminishing returns.

We need to get smarter about hardware and software innovation in order to get the most value from the emerging Internet of Things. And perhaps the smart thing to do is to hit pause on the half-century race to cram ever more transistors onto a single slice of silicon.

If we are to achieve the vision of connecting tens of billions of devices to the Internet Cisco predicts 40 billion smart objects and another 10 billion traditional devices and machines with embedded smarts were going to need a huge supply of low-cost chips with communications capabilities. The good news is that innovation and growth can continue at the same pace but only if we take a break from the relentless pressure of doubling the transistor count every two years.

To date weve kept pace with Moores Law by shrinking chip features, or nodes, to ever-smaller, nanoscale dimensions. (How big is a nanometer? Its about as long as your fingernail grows in one second. Slice a human hair lengthwise about 100,000 times, and thats a nanometer.) The cost-effectiveness ratio seems to have hit the sweet spot at about 28 nanometers. Each incremental advance beyond that has required ever-greater investments, reducing the bang-per-buck calculus.

Chips will continue to shrink, of course. We, along with other semiconductor companies are continuing to push toward the next goal of 10nm, but going beyond 10nm will require the development of new technologies, materials, and manufacturing processes that are still being perfected. Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV) lithography, exotic semiconductor materials, multiple 3D chip-stacking and 450mm wafers are just a few of the new, breathtakingly expensive avenues of research.

However, there are many levers we can pull with 28nm silicon to propel the industry forward and enable the Internet of Things era of innovation and growth from literally thousands of developers. We can drive cost, size, and power-efficiency improvements through better design engineering versus better process engineering. IoT devices typically have much smaller transistor counts and therefore dont require the latest (and most expensive) process nodes.

Adhering to the premise that 28nm is the optimum node size, then solidifying that node as the platform of choice and integrating more functionality, such as analog and RF components, is the next logical step. Analog components dont scale as well as digital components, but integrating them into relatively mature 28nm platforms will accelerate the connection of everything from watches, personal healthcare, and home appliances to automotive, transportation, agriculture, manufacturing, and industrial controls.

As an industry, we have access to low-cost hardware, from sensors to signal conditioners and wireless interfaces. Innovators are developing the ideas and bringing them to life in amazing new applications. All we, as an industry, need to do now is focus on standardizing the interfaces to ensure interoperability and stand out of the way. Even with Moores Law on pause, the best days of the semiconductor industry are yet ahead.

Henry Samueli is CTO and cofounder of Broadcom and serves as Chairman of the Board. In this role, he is responsible for driving the vision of Broadcoms research and development activities as well as helping to lead corporate-wide engineering development strategies.

View post:

As Moore's Law slows, better design engineering will win ...

Moore’s Law Turns 50: Seven Things To Remember – Forbes

On April 19, one of the most misunderstoodmaxims in history will celebrate a birthday.

No, ot the Second Amendment. Moores Law, the prescient observation outlined in an article in Electronics Magazine by Intel Intel co-founder Gordon Moore that effectively became the foundation document of thetechnology industry.

For a quick handy guide, here are a few pointers to remember:

1. Its An Observation, Not a Law. Laws dont change. Observations do. The classic statement of Moores Law is that the number of transistors on a chip double every two years. From 1965 to 1975, it was doubling every year. Since around 2008, the pace has slowed down to around 2.5 to 3 years. Weirdly, it was never 18 months although thats the most remembered version. Still, flexibility has added to its longevity. He also didnt call it a law.

Moores Law has come to be applied to anything that changes exponentially, and I am happy to take credit for it, Moore joked once.

2. Everything Depends On It. VCs dont invest in chip companies, budding entrepreneurs dream about launching sharing sites, and Apple Apple has become one of the most valuable companies in the world by selling technology as a luxury good. Semiconductors are about as cool as vacuum tubes they replaced.

But without the work being accomplished in those low-slung beige buildings off the Central Expressway we wouldnt be here. If we were still using the technology that was around when ENIAC (the machine that kicked off the tech revolution) was developed, an iPhone would be the size of a steamer trunk. Cellular relay stations would rival the Washington Monument in size. And a Google Google datacenter would consume as much energy as Manhattan.

Over the years, people have claimed transistor advances were becoming irrelevant. A series of well-publicized articles in 2003 quoting Marc Andreessen and Eric Schmidt warned about how hardware was delivering more performance than necessary. Then, oops, a few months later WiFi became a global sensation. Facebook and YouTube followed.

Visit link:

Moore's Law Turns 50: Seven Things To Remember - Forbes

Moores Law Hits Middle Age

SAN JOSE, Calif. On April 19, 1965, Electronics magazine published a paper in which Gordon Moore made a stunning observation: About every two years, engineers should be able to cram twice as many transistors into the same area of a silicon chip.

Over the next 50 years, engineers more or less managed to maintain that predicted pace of innovation, delivering dramatically better semiconductors. Their efforts were central to the seeming magic of a high tech sector riding an exponential growth curve that became known as Moores law.

Of the thousands of engineers who have kept Moores law going, EE Times interviewed a trio of top chip technologists who shared their stories and optimism that progress will continue.

To date the progress Moores law represents has not been limited to just ever faster and cheaper computers but an infinite number of new applications from communications and the Internet to smart phones and tablets, said Robert Maire, a semiconductor analysts writing in a recent newsletter.

No other industry can claim similar far reaching impact on the lives of so many people[in] less than a lifespan, more changes in the world can be traced back to the enabling power of the semiconductor industry than any other industryMore lives have been saved and fortunes impacted, Maire wrote.

Those benefits are measured in trillions of dollars, according to G. Dan Hutcheson, chief executive of VLSI Research. He calculates the deflationary value of packing more features into the same silicon area at $67.8 billion last year alone, with a knock-on value of half a trillion dollars to the overall electronics industry that used the chips.

The market value of the companies across the spectrum of technology driven by Moores Law amounted to $13 trillion in 2014, Hutchison estimated. Another way to put it is that one-fifth of the asset value in the worlds economy would be wiped out if the integrated circuit had not been invented and Moores law never happened, he said.

Gordon Moore submitted this simple table for his original magazine article.

For engineers like Mark Bohr, Moores law was the heartbeat of daily life at Intel, driving it to its longstanding position as the worlds biggest chip maker.

By the time I joined the company in 1978, the concept was well engrained in Intel culture, said Bohr, now a senior fellow in Intels manufacturing group. What started out as an observation became a guide for us all that we felt we needed to follow and, if possible, faster than anyone else in the industry, he said.

Read this article:

Moores Law Hits Middle Age

Law legalizing heroin antidote on Statehouse agenda today

INDIANAPOLIS -

A third reading on Senate Bill 406, also known as Aaron's Law, will be done at the Statehouse today. The law would put a heroin antidote in the hands and homes of everyday Hoosiers.

First responders and law enforcement has been have been equipped with Narcan for almost a year. Narcan is an antidote that can save a life if someone overdoses on heroin. Supporters of the bill say that over the past year, one thousand lives have been saved using Narcan in Marion County alone, including more than 200 this year alone. It's the next step, they say, in curbing what many call a heroin crisis in the state.

"We're not permitting the use of heroin," said Republican Representative Jim Merritt. "We're acknowledging we have addicts in our homes, and Narcan is needed to save lives, so this is an anecdote that is needed today. The next step is to treat those addicts so that maybe we can change our communities with the addiction to heroin."

Indiana's heroin problem also impacts children. A dramatic increase in Children in Need of Services cases (commonly called CHINS cases) are being filed in Marion County juvenile court. There was a 45% rise in these types of cases in 2014. So far in 2015, they have increased by 62%.

Juvenile Court Judge Marilyn Moores describes this increase as putting Indianapolis "youth in crisis." With that in mind, Moores is helping launch a new campaign called "We Care about Indy's Kids" to get help for abused and neglected children as a result of heroin addictions and use. That announcement will be made later this afternoon.

Aaron's Law will have a third read in the House today. Then, it will be on to the Senate for approval.

See the article here:

Law legalizing heroin antidote on Statehouse agenda today

Consumers to get easier access to hospital data

........................................................................................................................................................................................

Gov. Susana Martinez has signed legislation that makes it easier to get information about pricing, rates of medical complications and re-admissions at specific hospitals.

The law requires the state Health Department by January 2017 to post hospital-specific cost and quality of care information on an easily searchable website that consumers can access free of charge.

Mike Donnelly, health advocacy director for AARP New Mexico, said information on hospital pricing and health outcomes would help members decide where to go for care.

About a third of our membership is below Medicare eligibility age, and they are trying to make prudent decisions on health care on quality terms and cost differentials, Donnelly said.

Hospitals and health facilities already are required to report an extensive list of information to the state Department of Health, including medical and practice outcomes and health-system costs. But the department has not been allowed to present the information in a way that identifies a hospital or other type of health facility.

Under the legislation, the health secretary will appoint a committee to recommend how to carry out the required provisions.

New Mexico Hospital Association President and CEO Jeff Dye said his organization will work with the committee.

The legislation was a committee substitute for SB 323, sponsored by Sen. Mark Moores, R-Albuquerque, and SB 474, sponsored by Sen. Jerry Ortiz y Pino, D-Albuquerque, and Sen. Sander Rue, R-Albuquerque.

A legislative impact report for SB474 said the health department currently collects the amount listed on the hospital bill. However, the actual price a health plan ends up paying is not collected, and the department will have to develop a system for doing so.

More here:

Consumers to get easier access to hospital data

Father Time calls time on cricketing great Richie Benaud

Richard Benaud, "a true gentleman". Photo: Wayne Ludbey

At Lord's Cricket Ground, the home of cricket, the famous MCC's weathervane depicts old Father Time in his most ominous shape as the scythe-carrying grim reaper.

He bends down to remove a bail from the stumps, enacting Law 16(3) of cricket: "after the call of Time, the bails shall be removed".

Father Time is now on Twitter, as the official account of Lord's. And on Thursday night he Tweeted amid the marketing messages to mark the mortality of a great man: "Very sad to hear of the passing of Richie Benaud, a true great in the game of cricket, my thoughts are with his family".

It was one of many farewells to Benaud in the land where he began his commentating career after Australia's 1956 tour to England he stayed behind to train as a presenter with the BBC, then worked as a reporter at the News of the World. His first BBC radio commentary came in 1960, followed by his first TV appearance three years later.

Advertisement

The news of his death broke after midnight in the UK, but some marked it immediately.

England coach Peter Moores said Benaud "sums up all that is great about our sport. He was a true gentleman.

"He made heroes of the players he commentated on and his enthusiasm for the sport made you want to get off the sofa and play." In the morning English Cricket Board chairman Giles Clarke said it was "a very sad day".

"Cricket has lost perhaps its greatest advocate and someone who was a true giant of the modern game," he said. "He will always, above all, be remembered as one of cricket's most influential and authoritative voices; a supremely gifted broadcaster, journalist and author.

Excerpt from:

Father Time calls time on cricketing great Richie Benaud

Better off together? Our election team evaluates the coalition government

12:00 09 April 2015

Matt Adams

The new British Prime Minister David Cameron (left) with the new Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg on the steps of 10 Downing Street in central London, before getting down to the business of running the country. PRESS ASSOCIATION Photo. Picture date: Wednesday May 12 2010. The pair went to work hours after finally putting together their historic Tory/Lib Dem coalition government. See PA story POLITICS Coalition. Photo credit should read: Lewis Whyld/PA Wire

The recent Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government was the first the UK had seen since 1945, marking a dramatic shift in the political landscape which has become even more pronounced over its five years in power.

Email this article to a friend

To send a link to this page you must be logged in.

With this in mind, we asked the members of our election team whether they thought UK politics has been better or worse for having a coalition? And if the prospect of a second coalition was worrying?

Student Spencer Caminsky, 17, said: I think UK politics has been significantly worse off for having a coalition, as majoritarian governments get a lot more reform done than any coalition could.

Take the Blair government in 1997: their confident and enthusiastic leader, huge promises for reform and incredible backing from the mass media gave them a huge majority come the General Election. In the end, they won with a 179 majority in the Commons.

This was incredible for Labour, allowing them to not only pass virtually any law they wanted due to their power in Parliament, but the absolute majority also allowed them to keep virtually every promise they made to the electorate. From Education Action Zones and the Education Maintenance Allowance to benefit lower-class students in the education system, to massive constitutional reform in the Constitutional Reform Act, in devolution and the compliance with the Human Rights Act, the electorate was kept happy and political enthusiasm was on a tremendous high.

More:

Better off together? Our election team evaluates the coalition government

Stan Collymore turns the airwaves blue while watching Aston Villa from press box

By Charles Sale for the Daily Mail

Published: 16:37 EST, 8 April 2015 | Updated: 19:07 EST, 8 April 2015

Stan Collymore, talkSPORT lead football pundit who revels in laying down the law on the radio, astonished reporters with his behaviour during Aston Villas 3-3 Premier League draw with QPR on Tuesday night.

Collymore, despite sitting in the Villa Park press box where media impartiality is taken for granted, was jumping up and down during the game like the most fanatical Villa fan, celebrating the goals with the home supporters.

He even greeted QPRs Joey Barton falling down to win a free-kick by clearly shouting at him: You f****** rat.

talkSport pundit Stan Collymore was in full fan mode as he celebrated Villa's 3-3 draw with QPR

The former Villa striker let loose with his wild, and sometimes expletive laden, comments from the press box

Villa fan Collymore believed such actions in the supposed neutral sanctuary of the press box were permissible as he wasnt working for talkSPORT during the match. He tweeted: With respect, on nights I go as a fan . . . Im not being paid to do anything other than be a fan.

And talkSPORT would not comment as they said Collymore wasnt on duty, with reporter Nigel Pearson giving his rather more impartial verdict for the station. However Collymore did an interview with Adrian Durham and Darren Gough on talkSPORT before the match.

Collymore called Joey Barton a 'f*****g rat' after he fell down to win a free-kick for QPR during the game

See the rest here:

Stan Collymore turns the airwaves blue while watching Aston Villa from press box

Five questions to help marketers solve the metasearch dilemma

By Wei Xia (VP of new product and services) and Quentin Moores (VP of marketing Services) of DerbySoft.

Metasearch continues to be one of the hottest topics for the hospitality industry. We have already written two articles about metasearch this year and hosted a webinar with Tnooz to give greater insight to the challenges and solutions available to hoteliers.

The rapid growth and changing landscape of metasearch means that the "old" rules of metasearch marketing no longer apply. Marketers are facing many new problems and dilemmas.

Is metasearch a marketing channel or distribution channel?

Metasearch used to be a simple concept to grasp when it was defined simply as a marketing channel. Now it is getting more complicated. Increasingly, many major metasearch sites like TripAdvisor are promoting booking and payment functions, similar to an OTA, despite many differences.

Many hotel marketers may balk at the idea that a booking would be completed on a metasearch site. To solve this dilemma, we have to step back to understand what the business objective is?

If the ultimate objective is to get more bookings at a reasonable cost, then we should embrace this change. Metasearch is no longer just a marketing channel, nor is it simply an OTA type of distribution channel. Perhaps it should be called a direct distribution-marketing channel, through which you can get bookings from direct customers on your branded site or app?

How much budget should be allocated for metasearch?

Consider this example, recently one of our clients was having a great month, its metasearch traffic and booking volume reached an all time high with a targeted ROI. Then we got a call from the client telling us it had consumed its entire monthly marketing budget for metasearch and asked us to pause its metasearch campaign for the remainder of the month.

In the meantime, OTAs continued to generate and deliver bookings from metasearch and as a result the hotels paid higher commissions, on the same bookings that could have already been generated from our metasearch campaign.

See the article here:

Five questions to help marketers solve the metasearch dilemma